What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

Wait, in your above post you classified both Christianity and islamism in two total opposite fashions. Why that isn't a stereotype?

 

I try to put things into perspective like that, which is getting harder and harder every minute.

 

Actually, I was referring to differences between Christian and Muslim theology. That isn't stereotyping. Unless you call saying "blondes have lighter hair than brunettes" and the like an example of stereotyping.....

[ February 19, 2006, 01:32: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Except that there is a little problem, when your uniform Christianity can be branched into at least 3 major branches - and lots of other BS people are making up daily - and islamism is divided into two very opposing and hostile groups - that I know of.
So yes, it is a bit more complicate than your hair color analogy.

 

There are theological distinctions between Christianity (all sects) and Islam. One area of difference lies in the area of personal responsibility. Christianity does not hold me accountable for the sins of someone who lives 3 apartments down from me. Islam would, so there is a pretty big distinction, there.

While we're on the subject, the theological differences between the Shiites and the Sunni are very tiny. The schism wasn't about theology.....it was about whether or not the lineage of Mohammad should be his successors. It wasn't over the beliefs of Islam at all. It was about power.

 

I'd argue that Europe has also been doing a great many things to their Muslim community that Americans would never be foolish enough to do. France, as I mentioned, has been prohibiting Muslim women from wearing headscarves. This can't happen in the US, because we see that as a form of discrimination. If you ask me, one of the main reasons we don't have Muslims rioting in the United States is that we aren't giving them any reason. I also agree, however, that immediately stamping down riots is essential to maintaining peace. There's a fine line between protesting and rioting. The only thing I want people to understand is that Islam is actually an extension of it's culture. Islam can be interpreted to mean a wide variety of things and the problems we have with Islam are actually cultural issues due to a different cultural frame of reference. This is why western Muslims believe in free expression, equal rights, and the seperation of church and state. They come from a different culture. No doubt that we are having problems with many people coming out of the Muslim world but, when we label Islam as the problem, we are missing the point. We are lumping every person who follows Islam in the same group, and that's wrong.

 

Numbers, the Problems Europeans have is numbers. Numbers. Even Italians and Yugoslavians can be integrated. It's hard, but possible. The problem is, if they make out 50% of the population, things can get out of hand.

The obvious difference between North-America and Europe with foreigners and integration is, that North-Americans have way lower numbers compared to their whole population to integrate. I've looked up some numbers and I've seen that the biggest percentage of foreigners in the US are concentrated in Californa and New York with over 20%. That's a ridiculously low number.

So no, it may be common myth, but it's not true that the North-Americans and other former over-sea colonies have more insight and experience in integrating foreigners. They always had the advantage of comparably low numbers of new-comers.

On the other hand, I am appalled of the rigidity and forced homogenity of US integration tradition. Many right-wing politicians look at the traditional harshness of the US as an example. I shy away from that. It's the numbers that have to be controlled, if the foreigners don't make up more than a third of the inhabitants of a town, I think integration is easily possible without to much pressure.

But Laicisim is a tradition that will not be easily given away to the cheap and meaningless opinion of any foreigner. No. Establishment of relgious peace between protestants and catholics is one of the biggest achievements of modern society.

 

That's a bit complicate statement. If you bother to read Dostoievsky work - mainly Brothers Karamazovi - you will see it is not that black and white - at least in the ROC theology - as you paint it. The idea that you might be guilty before all for inaction for example.
I will take your word for the schism of the islam. I know not much about it.

 

Tal: asking a devout muslim woman to remove her headscarf is akin to asking most western women to take of their shirts. A headscarf is not a Chidoor. It is not covering the body head to toe. You would wear a Chidoor or an Abaya for that. A headscarf just covers the woman's hair. It is also used by many orthodox Jewish women, so disallowing it affects more than just Muslims. Call the use of headscarves "brainwashing" if you want to, but keep in mind there are parts of the world where the locals don't wear any clothing at all. That would mean that our current western standards of modesty are also the result of "brainwashing".

 

Pretty much, yeah. The only two reasons to wear clothing are warmth and securing "flappables". Work wear during the summer should be bathing suits.

 

If that's the case, I need to lose a few pounds first. *looks at some of his peers* And I really don't want to see that much of those people...

 

Depending on the degree, that might also qualify under flappables.

 

No, there are plenty of muslim women who don't cover their heads, and still consider themselves to be devout muslims. Just because a subset of Islam considers head-covering in women to signal devotion doesn't mean that everyone accepts this....

 

Actually, because the opinions on scarves differ so much it's better to have a clear rule for them, like none allowed. The bickering, fights and clashes among the different sub-groups and nationalities that are "muslim" about things like scarves are an eternal war of the nerves that gets quickly boring and annoying and just does not end.

And it's completely moot to talk about Turks, Algerians, Albanians and Saudis as "one" group. They are so different, any comment not taking that into account gets meaningless.

To something actually connected to the topic: There is a huge block-buster in Turkey, "Valley of the Wolves" or something, where Christians, Jews, Americans and Europeans are depicted as bloodthirsty not too bright fools. The movies can also be seen in German cinemas. And the head of the Bavarian goverment seems to want to censor that movie...

link

[ February 20, 2006, 18:08: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Not all Muslim women will feel as if they were asked to take off their shirt, but I've seen a lot of women wearing no shirt and just a sports bra in the gym. We would never deign to require all women to strip down to a sports bra. Many would be very uncomfortable doing that and would call such a thing discrimination or (even more likely) sexual harrassment. So, my metaphor actually stands because many western women are OK without a shirt. Many also are not, and we would never think to require them to do something that makes them feel indecent. The difference in modesty standards is just a line in the sand. Muslims coming into the western world have no right to force them to follow their modesty standards. Conversely, the western world has no right to force Muslims to adhere to a standard which they find indecent.

 

Maybe. In the other hand, the west has the right to prohibite that they come there.

 

Drew, I think your bra metaphor is flawed. For the very reason you gave: As you said Western women are not forced to dress in a specific way, while muslima clearly are, though not by the ideals of the natives. Where I live not all muslima are free to decide how to dress. Rather it is the man's call. Be it the father or brother or... And the men will make the women obey, by means that vary. A good beating will get the job done in the end anyway.

By our standards that is oppression. Since they live in our nation it is our standards that apply, not their sexist ideas of gender roles - as it is our responsibility to aid these women. You can hardly expect us to follow a policy of double standards. It would be plain racism to have our laws protect the natives though not the foreigners. Yes?

As for Valley of the Wolves: I heard it is big among the Turks in Germany. There is quite the run on the cinemas in Berlin for example. I dont want that movie to get banned or something. Not at all. Let them all come out in the open. Wont be much of a surprise to anyone here. Oh, and it complements the patriotic US movie trash nicely, btw. But I wonder how our American friends feel about having the very people they were lobbying so decisively (EU) agitate against them in that blunt fashion. Exquisite backstabbing anyone? And here some feared the US would introduce their Trojan horse to the EU.